Is $K[X]hookrightarrow K[[X]]$ an epimorphism?Is it true that $(A[[x]]otimes_AmathbbC)cap overlinemathbbQ[[x]] = A[[x]]otimes_AoverlinemathbbQ$?Given a commutative ring $R$ and an epimorphism $R^m to R^n$ is then $m geq n$?epimorphism in the category of commutative ringsIs there a characterization of integral domains in terms of the homomorphisms out of them?Abelian category induced by commutative ringIs I-adic completion a ring epimorphism?Is there a purely category-theoretic description of the total quotient ring?Existence of coproducts and products in categoryProve a certain homomorphism in the category of rings is an epimorphismCanonical homomorphism into scalar extension module through a ring epimorphismEqualizer in the category of rings with 1.

Sort a list by elements of another list

Do the temporary hit points from the Battlerager barbarian's Reckless Abandon stack if I make multiple attacks on my turn?

Opposite of a diet

Unreliable Magic - Is it worth it?

How to write papers efficiently when English isn't my first language?

How does it work when somebody invests in my business?

Inappropriate reference requests from Journal reviewers

How do I rename a Linux host without needing to reboot for the rename to take effect?

Where does the Z80 processor start executing from?

How do I find the solutions of the following equation?

Why escape if the_content isnt?

Sequence of Tenses: Translating the subjunctive

Large drywall patch supports

Is `x >> pure y` equivalent to `liftM (const y) x`

How can a function with a hole (removable discontinuity) equal a function with no hole?

Is there a problem with hiding "forgot password" until it's needed?

Would this custom Sorcerer variant that can only learn any verbal-component-only spell be unbalanced?

Why are there no referendums in the US?

Proof of work - lottery approach

Is there a korbon needed for conversion?

How did Arya survive the stabbing?

How did Doctor Strange see the winning outcome in Avengers: Infinity War?

How to be diplomatic in refusing to write code that breaches the privacy of our users

A Rare Riley Riddle



Is $K[X]hookrightarrow K[[X]]$ an epimorphism?


Is it true that $(A[[x]]otimes_AmathbbC)cap overlinemathbbQ[[x]] = A[[x]]otimes_AoverlinemathbbQ$?Given a commutative ring $R$ and an epimorphism $R^m to R^n$ is then $m geq n$?epimorphism in the category of commutative ringsIs there a characterization of integral domains in terms of the homomorphisms out of them?Abelian category induced by commutative ringIs I-adic completion a ring epimorphism?Is there a purely category-theoretic description of the total quotient ring?Existence of coproducts and products in categoryProve a certain homomorphism in the category of rings is an epimorphismCanonical homomorphism into scalar extension module through a ring epimorphismEqualizer in the category of rings with 1.













8












$begingroup$


Let $K$ be a field and $X$ an indeterminate.




Is the natural monomorphism $K[X]hookrightarrow K[[X]]$ an epimorphism?




By epimorphism I mean epimorphism in the category of commutative rings.



EDIT. The question can be spelled out as follows: Are there distinct morphisms from $K[[X]]$ to some commutative ring $A$ which coincide on $K[X]$?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    What is an epimorphism exactly ? $K[[x]]$ is the completion of $K[x]$ for the (non-Archimedian) absolute value $|x^Nf(x)| = 2^-N$ if $f(0) ne 0$
    $endgroup$
    – reuns
    Aug 12 '17 at 12:56







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @reuns The inclusion $f:K[X]to K[[X]]$ is epi if for every two ring homomorphisms $g_1,g_2:K[[X]]to R$, if $g_1circ f=g_2circ f$ then $g_1=g_2$.
    $endgroup$
    – uSir470888
    Aug 12 '17 at 13:00















8












$begingroup$


Let $K$ be a field and $X$ an indeterminate.




Is the natural monomorphism $K[X]hookrightarrow K[[X]]$ an epimorphism?




By epimorphism I mean epimorphism in the category of commutative rings.



EDIT. The question can be spelled out as follows: Are there distinct morphisms from $K[[X]]$ to some commutative ring $A$ which coincide on $K[X]$?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    What is an epimorphism exactly ? $K[[x]]$ is the completion of $K[x]$ for the (non-Archimedian) absolute value $|x^Nf(x)| = 2^-N$ if $f(0) ne 0$
    $endgroup$
    – reuns
    Aug 12 '17 at 12:56







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @reuns The inclusion $f:K[X]to K[[X]]$ is epi if for every two ring homomorphisms $g_1,g_2:K[[X]]to R$, if $g_1circ f=g_2circ f$ then $g_1=g_2$.
    $endgroup$
    – uSir470888
    Aug 12 '17 at 13:00













8












8








8


4



$begingroup$


Let $K$ be a field and $X$ an indeterminate.




Is the natural monomorphism $K[X]hookrightarrow K[[X]]$ an epimorphism?




By epimorphism I mean epimorphism in the category of commutative rings.



EDIT. The question can be spelled out as follows: Are there distinct morphisms from $K[[X]]$ to some commutative ring $A$ which coincide on $K[X]$?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Let $K$ be a field and $X$ an indeterminate.




Is the natural monomorphism $K[X]hookrightarrow K[[X]]$ an epimorphism?




By epimorphism I mean epimorphism in the category of commutative rings.



EDIT. The question can be spelled out as follows: Are there distinct morphisms from $K[[X]]$ to some commutative ring $A$ which coincide on $K[X]$?







abstract-algebra polynomials commutative-algebra formal-power-series






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 12 '17 at 13:04







Pierre-Yves Gaillard

















asked Aug 12 '17 at 11:06









Pierre-Yves GaillardPierre-Yves Gaillard

13.5k23184




13.5k23184











  • $begingroup$
    What is an epimorphism exactly ? $K[[x]]$ is the completion of $K[x]$ for the (non-Archimedian) absolute value $|x^Nf(x)| = 2^-N$ if $f(0) ne 0$
    $endgroup$
    – reuns
    Aug 12 '17 at 12:56







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @reuns The inclusion $f:K[X]to K[[X]]$ is epi if for every two ring homomorphisms $g_1,g_2:K[[X]]to R$, if $g_1circ f=g_2circ f$ then $g_1=g_2$.
    $endgroup$
    – uSir470888
    Aug 12 '17 at 13:00
















  • $begingroup$
    What is an epimorphism exactly ? $K[[x]]$ is the completion of $K[x]$ for the (non-Archimedian) absolute value $|x^Nf(x)| = 2^-N$ if $f(0) ne 0$
    $endgroup$
    – reuns
    Aug 12 '17 at 12:56







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @reuns The inclusion $f:K[X]to K[[X]]$ is epi if for every two ring homomorphisms $g_1,g_2:K[[X]]to R$, if $g_1circ f=g_2circ f$ then $g_1=g_2$.
    $endgroup$
    – uSir470888
    Aug 12 '17 at 13:00















$begingroup$
What is an epimorphism exactly ? $K[[x]]$ is the completion of $K[x]$ for the (non-Archimedian) absolute value $|x^Nf(x)| = 2^-N$ if $f(0) ne 0$
$endgroup$
– reuns
Aug 12 '17 at 12:56





$begingroup$
What is an epimorphism exactly ? $K[[x]]$ is the completion of $K[x]$ for the (non-Archimedian) absolute value $|x^Nf(x)| = 2^-N$ if $f(0) ne 0$
$endgroup$
– reuns
Aug 12 '17 at 12:56





2




2




$begingroup$
@reuns The inclusion $f:K[X]to K[[X]]$ is epi if for every two ring homomorphisms $g_1,g_2:K[[X]]to R$, if $g_1circ f=g_2circ f$ then $g_1=g_2$.
$endgroup$
– uSir470888
Aug 12 '17 at 13:00




$begingroup$
@reuns The inclusion $f:K[X]to K[[X]]$ is epi if for every two ring homomorphisms $g_1,g_2:K[[X]]to R$, if $g_1circ f=g_2circ f$ then $g_1=g_2$.
$endgroup$
– uSir470888
Aug 12 '17 at 13:00










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















7












$begingroup$

The map from a Noetherian local ring to its completion is faithfully flat, and a faithfully flat epimorphism is an isomorphism. It follows from this that the map from the localization of $K[X]$ at $(X)$ to $K[[X]]$ is not epi.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/04VM and stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00MC
    $endgroup$
    – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:01







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is there a straightforward way to extract a concrete counterexample from this?
    $endgroup$
    – tomasz
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:08






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Pierre-Yves Gaillard, we have that the inclusion factors as $K[X]to K[X]_(X)to K[[X]]$, so if the inclusion were epi, $K[X]_(X)to K[[X]]$ would have to be as well.
    $endgroup$
    – Ennar
    Aug 12 '17 at 19:26






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I don't think that's what they're saying, they're saying "If $fcirc g$ is epi, then so is $f$"
    $endgroup$
    – Max
    Aug 12 '17 at 20:03






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, that's what I'm saying, @Max. That $K[X]to K[X]_(X)$ is epimorphism establishes the other direction in "if and only if", but is not needed here.
    $endgroup$
    – Ennar
    Aug 12 '17 at 20:14



















5












$begingroup$

Let $B$ be a transcendence basis for the field $K((X))$ over $K(X)$ and let $L$ be an algebraic closure of $K((X))$. Note that any injection from $B$ to itself can be extended to an endomorphism of $L$ over $K(X)$. There are many such injections, since $B$ is uncountable (see below for a proof). Restricting these endomorphisms to $K((X))$ gives many different homomorphisms $K((X))to L$ which all agree on $K[X]$. Restricting these homomorphisms to $K[[X]]$, we get many different homomorphisms $K[[X]]to L$ which agree on $K[X]$. (They are still different since a homomorphism on $K((X))$ is determined by its restriction to $K[[X]]$.)



[There are many other ways you could frame this same idea; for instance you could set it up more like uSir470888's answer. The point is that it's really easy to define homomorphisms into an algebraically closed field. In particular, once you're mapping into an algebraically closed field you can forget about whatever rigidity $K[[X]]$ might have had over $K[X]$ and map transcendental elements of $K[[X]]$ to any algebraically independent elements you want.]




Here is a proof that $K((X))$ always has uncountable transcendence degree over $K(X)$. First, we prove a lemma:




Lemma: Let $k$ be a field, let $K$ be a field extension of $k$, and suppose $Ssubset k((X))$ is algebraically independent over $k(X)$. Then $S$ is algebraically independent over $K(X)$, as a subset of $K((X))$.



Proof: Suppose some elements $s_1,dots,s_n in S$ satisfy $h(s_1,dots,s_n)=0$, where $h$ is a nonzero polynomial with coefficients in $K[X]$. For each $minmathbbZ$, the $X^m$ term of $h(s_1,dots,s_n)$ can be written as a polynomial in the coefficients of the $s_i$ (which are certain elements of $k$) and the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$ (each coefficient of $h$ is an element of $K[X]$, and the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$ are elements of $K$). Moreover, these polynomials are actually linear in the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$. So to say that $h(s_1,dots,s_n)=0$ is to say that the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$ satisfy a certain infinite list of linear equations with coefficients in $k$. But if a system of linear equations in finitely many variables with coefficients in a field $k$ has a nonzero solution in an extension of $k$, it has a nonzero solution in $k$ (this is essentially the fact that the rank of a matrix cannot change if you extend the base field). This means that we can replace the coefficients of $h$ by polynomials with coefficients in $k$ (which are not all zero) and $h(s_1,dots,s_n)=0$ will still be true. This contradicts the assumption that $S$ is algebraically independent over $k(X)$.




Now let $K$ be any field, and let $k$ be any countable subfield of $K$. Since $k(X)$ is countable and $k((X))$ is uncountable, there exists an uncountable subset $Ssubset k((X))$ which is algebraically independent over $k(X)$. By the Lemma, $S$ is also algebraically independent over $K(X)$ as a subset of $K((X))$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Awesome! I wish I could accept several answers! The link stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00MC given by Mariano shows that $Atohat A_mathfrak m$ is not an epimorphism (unless it's an isomorphism) if $A$ is local and noetherian. I was wondering if, with your argument, you couldn't show that this is also true if $A$ is a (not necessarily noetherian) domain?
    $endgroup$
    – Pierre-Yves Gaillard
    Aug 12 '17 at 17:02











  • $begingroup$
    A variant of my argument shows that if $B$ is any $A$-algebra which has elements which are transcendental over $A$, then $Ato B$ is not an epimorphism. But I don't believe that $hatA_mathfrakm$ must always have transcendental elements (if it is different from $A$). For instance, let $A$ be local ring intermediate between $K[X]_(X)$ and $K[[X]]$ which contains an entire transcendence basis for $K[[X]]$. Then if I'm not mistaken, the completion of $A$ will just be $K[[X]]$, which is algebraic over $A$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 17:21










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you! I realized that there is an elementary point I don't understand in you answer. You need to know (it seems to me) that the transcendence degree of $K((X))$ over $K(X)$ is at least two. What would be a simple argument to prove this?
    $endgroup$
    – Pierre-Yves Gaillard
    Aug 12 '17 at 17:57






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I have added a proof that $K((X))$ has uncountable transcendence degree over $K(X)$ to the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 19:08






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yeah, that's the structure of the argument.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 19:42


















1












$begingroup$

[Still checking if $g_1$ and $g_2$ are well defined. Let me know if you find something that doesn't. I changed the target ring to a larger one because I needed space for values on algebraic elements once I force a definition on a transcendental one.]



Let $R$ be the ring of power series on $X$ that are algebraic over the ring of fractions over $K$. This is $R$ consists of all power series $h$ such that there is a polynomial $p(Y)=a_0+a_1Y+...+a_nY^n$ with $a_i$ rational functions over $K$ with denominators that don't vanish at $X=0$, such that $p(h)=0$.



We need to construct two different homomorphisms $g_1,g_2$ from $K[[X]]$ to $R$ such that they coincide on the polynomials. That way $g_1circ i=g_2circ i$ for the inclusion $i:K[X]to K[[X]]$ but $g_1neq g_2$. Showing that $i$ is not an epimorphism.



Define $g_i(s)=s$ for $sin R subset K[[X]]$, $i=1,2$.



Now define $g_1(e^X)=1$ and $g_2(e^X)=sum_n=0^inftyX^n=(1-X)^-1$. In particular $g_1(e^X)=1neq (1-X)^-1=g_2(e^X)$. This defines $g_1,g_2$ on the sub-ring of $K[[X]]$ generated by $R$ and powers of $e^nX$ for $ninmathbbZ$, which are the elements of the form $sum_n=-N^Ne^nXa_n$ for $a_nin R$. Observe how the transcendence of $e^X$ implies that each element of this sub-ring has a unique expression in this form. Their images by $g_1,g_2$ are $sum_n=-N^Na_n$ and $sum_n=-N^N(1-X)^-na_n$ respectively.



We have $g_1,g_2$ defined in a larger sub-ring $R_1$. We still need to define them appropriately on the elements of $K[[X]]$ that are algebraic over $R_1$.



Assume $Yin K[[X]]$ is algebraic over $R_1$. Then there is a polynomial $p(Z)=a_0+a_1Z+...+a_nZ^n$ with coefficients $a_iin R_1$ such that $p(Y)=0$.
We need to define $g_1,g_2$ on $Y$ to be a solution of $0=g_i(a_0)+g_i(a_1)Z+...+g_i(a_n)Z^n$, respectively. In $R$ we have solutions of $0=g_i(a_0)+g_i(a_1)Z+...+g_i(a_n)Z^n$. So, we can send $Y$ to one of those solutions. This extends $g_1,g_2$ to a larger sub-ring $R_2$ of elements of $K[[X]]$ algebraic over $R_1$.



We can again pick an element of $K[[X]]$ transcendental over $R_2$. Defining their images in $R$ to be $1$ or $(1-X)^-1$ we can extend $g_1,g_2$ again and again to homomorphisms on ever larger subrings of $K[[X]]$.



The end results will be ring homomorphism that are different at $e^X$ but equal on the polynomials.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks! I'm trying to understand your answer, but I'm very slow. (I changed the index $K$ to $N$ in your post, to avoid a clash with the field $K$.)
    $endgroup$
    – Pierre-Yves Gaillard
    Aug 12 '17 at 12:26







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Exp(-X) is not in the ring generated by R and exp(X), No?
    $endgroup$
    – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:04











  • $begingroup$
    @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez Fixed that. I meant generated by the powers of $e^X$.
    $endgroup$
    – uSir470888
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:26










  • $begingroup$
    You can save yourself a lot of headaches by just taking your target to be some algebraically closed field containing $K[[X]]$; see my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 16:15










Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2391187%2fis-kx-hookrightarrow-kx-an-epimorphism%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









7












$begingroup$

The map from a Noetherian local ring to its completion is faithfully flat, and a faithfully flat epimorphism is an isomorphism. It follows from this that the map from the localization of $K[X]$ at $(X)$ to $K[[X]]$ is not epi.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/04VM and stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00MC
    $endgroup$
    – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:01







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is there a straightforward way to extract a concrete counterexample from this?
    $endgroup$
    – tomasz
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:08






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Pierre-Yves Gaillard, we have that the inclusion factors as $K[X]to K[X]_(X)to K[[X]]$, so if the inclusion were epi, $K[X]_(X)to K[[X]]$ would have to be as well.
    $endgroup$
    – Ennar
    Aug 12 '17 at 19:26






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I don't think that's what they're saying, they're saying "If $fcirc g$ is epi, then so is $f$"
    $endgroup$
    – Max
    Aug 12 '17 at 20:03






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, that's what I'm saying, @Max. That $K[X]to K[X]_(X)$ is epimorphism establishes the other direction in "if and only if", but is not needed here.
    $endgroup$
    – Ennar
    Aug 12 '17 at 20:14
















7












$begingroup$

The map from a Noetherian local ring to its completion is faithfully flat, and a faithfully flat epimorphism is an isomorphism. It follows from this that the map from the localization of $K[X]$ at $(X)$ to $K[[X]]$ is not epi.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/04VM and stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00MC
    $endgroup$
    – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:01







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is there a straightforward way to extract a concrete counterexample from this?
    $endgroup$
    – tomasz
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:08






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Pierre-Yves Gaillard, we have that the inclusion factors as $K[X]to K[X]_(X)to K[[X]]$, so if the inclusion were epi, $K[X]_(X)to K[[X]]$ would have to be as well.
    $endgroup$
    – Ennar
    Aug 12 '17 at 19:26






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I don't think that's what they're saying, they're saying "If $fcirc g$ is epi, then so is $f$"
    $endgroup$
    – Max
    Aug 12 '17 at 20:03






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, that's what I'm saying, @Max. That $K[X]to K[X]_(X)$ is epimorphism establishes the other direction in "if and only if", but is not needed here.
    $endgroup$
    – Ennar
    Aug 12 '17 at 20:14














7












7








7





$begingroup$

The map from a Noetherian local ring to its completion is faithfully flat, and a faithfully flat epimorphism is an isomorphism. It follows from this that the map from the localization of $K[X]$ at $(X)$ to $K[[X]]$ is not epi.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



The map from a Noetherian local ring to its completion is faithfully flat, and a faithfully flat epimorphism is an isomorphism. It follows from this that the map from the localization of $K[X]$ at $(X)$ to $K[[X]]$ is not epi.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 13 '18 at 1:36









Xam

4,57551846




4,57551846










answered Aug 12 '17 at 13:59









Mariano Suárez-ÁlvarezMariano Suárez-Álvarez

112k7157290




112k7157290







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/04VM and stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00MC
    $endgroup$
    – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:01







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is there a straightforward way to extract a concrete counterexample from this?
    $endgroup$
    – tomasz
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:08






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Pierre-Yves Gaillard, we have that the inclusion factors as $K[X]to K[X]_(X)to K[[X]]$, so if the inclusion were epi, $K[X]_(X)to K[[X]]$ would have to be as well.
    $endgroup$
    – Ennar
    Aug 12 '17 at 19:26






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I don't think that's what they're saying, they're saying "If $fcirc g$ is epi, then so is $f$"
    $endgroup$
    – Max
    Aug 12 '17 at 20:03






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, that's what I'm saying, @Max. That $K[X]to K[X]_(X)$ is epimorphism establishes the other direction in "if and only if", but is not needed here.
    $endgroup$
    – Ennar
    Aug 12 '17 at 20:14













  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/04VM and stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00MC
    $endgroup$
    – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:01







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is there a straightforward way to extract a concrete counterexample from this?
    $endgroup$
    – tomasz
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:08






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Pierre-Yves Gaillard, we have that the inclusion factors as $K[X]to K[X]_(X)to K[[X]]$, so if the inclusion were epi, $K[X]_(X)to K[[X]]$ would have to be as well.
    $endgroup$
    – Ennar
    Aug 12 '17 at 19:26






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I don't think that's what they're saying, they're saying "If $fcirc g$ is epi, then so is $f$"
    $endgroup$
    – Max
    Aug 12 '17 at 20:03






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, that's what I'm saying, @Max. That $K[X]to K[X]_(X)$ is epimorphism establishes the other direction in "if and only if", but is not needed here.
    $endgroup$
    – Ennar
    Aug 12 '17 at 20:14








1




1




$begingroup$
See stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/04VM and stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00MC
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Aug 12 '17 at 14:01





$begingroup$
See stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/04VM and stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00MC
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Aug 12 '17 at 14:01





1




1




$begingroup$
Is there a straightforward way to extract a concrete counterexample from this?
$endgroup$
– tomasz
Aug 12 '17 at 14:08




$begingroup$
Is there a straightforward way to extract a concrete counterexample from this?
$endgroup$
– tomasz
Aug 12 '17 at 14:08




1




1




$begingroup$
@Pierre-Yves Gaillard, we have that the inclusion factors as $K[X]to K[X]_(X)to K[[X]]$, so if the inclusion were epi, $K[X]_(X)to K[[X]]$ would have to be as well.
$endgroup$
– Ennar
Aug 12 '17 at 19:26




$begingroup$
@Pierre-Yves Gaillard, we have that the inclusion factors as $K[X]to K[X]_(X)to K[[X]]$, so if the inclusion were epi, $K[X]_(X)to K[[X]]$ would have to be as well.
$endgroup$
– Ennar
Aug 12 '17 at 19:26




2




2




$begingroup$
I don't think that's what they're saying, they're saying "If $fcirc g$ is epi, then so is $f$"
$endgroup$
– Max
Aug 12 '17 at 20:03




$begingroup$
I don't think that's what they're saying, they're saying "If $fcirc g$ is epi, then so is $f$"
$endgroup$
– Max
Aug 12 '17 at 20:03




1




1




$begingroup$
Yes, that's what I'm saying, @Max. That $K[X]to K[X]_(X)$ is epimorphism establishes the other direction in "if and only if", but is not needed here.
$endgroup$
– Ennar
Aug 12 '17 at 20:14





$begingroup$
Yes, that's what I'm saying, @Max. That $K[X]to K[X]_(X)$ is epimorphism establishes the other direction in "if and only if", but is not needed here.
$endgroup$
– Ennar
Aug 12 '17 at 20:14












5












$begingroup$

Let $B$ be a transcendence basis for the field $K((X))$ over $K(X)$ and let $L$ be an algebraic closure of $K((X))$. Note that any injection from $B$ to itself can be extended to an endomorphism of $L$ over $K(X)$. There are many such injections, since $B$ is uncountable (see below for a proof). Restricting these endomorphisms to $K((X))$ gives many different homomorphisms $K((X))to L$ which all agree on $K[X]$. Restricting these homomorphisms to $K[[X]]$, we get many different homomorphisms $K[[X]]to L$ which agree on $K[X]$. (They are still different since a homomorphism on $K((X))$ is determined by its restriction to $K[[X]]$.)



[There are many other ways you could frame this same idea; for instance you could set it up more like uSir470888's answer. The point is that it's really easy to define homomorphisms into an algebraically closed field. In particular, once you're mapping into an algebraically closed field you can forget about whatever rigidity $K[[X]]$ might have had over $K[X]$ and map transcendental elements of $K[[X]]$ to any algebraically independent elements you want.]




Here is a proof that $K((X))$ always has uncountable transcendence degree over $K(X)$. First, we prove a lemma:




Lemma: Let $k$ be a field, let $K$ be a field extension of $k$, and suppose $Ssubset k((X))$ is algebraically independent over $k(X)$. Then $S$ is algebraically independent over $K(X)$, as a subset of $K((X))$.



Proof: Suppose some elements $s_1,dots,s_n in S$ satisfy $h(s_1,dots,s_n)=0$, where $h$ is a nonzero polynomial with coefficients in $K[X]$. For each $minmathbbZ$, the $X^m$ term of $h(s_1,dots,s_n)$ can be written as a polynomial in the coefficients of the $s_i$ (which are certain elements of $k$) and the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$ (each coefficient of $h$ is an element of $K[X]$, and the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$ are elements of $K$). Moreover, these polynomials are actually linear in the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$. So to say that $h(s_1,dots,s_n)=0$ is to say that the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$ satisfy a certain infinite list of linear equations with coefficients in $k$. But if a system of linear equations in finitely many variables with coefficients in a field $k$ has a nonzero solution in an extension of $k$, it has a nonzero solution in $k$ (this is essentially the fact that the rank of a matrix cannot change if you extend the base field). This means that we can replace the coefficients of $h$ by polynomials with coefficients in $k$ (which are not all zero) and $h(s_1,dots,s_n)=0$ will still be true. This contradicts the assumption that $S$ is algebraically independent over $k(X)$.




Now let $K$ be any field, and let $k$ be any countable subfield of $K$. Since $k(X)$ is countable and $k((X))$ is uncountable, there exists an uncountable subset $Ssubset k((X))$ which is algebraically independent over $k(X)$. By the Lemma, $S$ is also algebraically independent over $K(X)$ as a subset of $K((X))$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Awesome! I wish I could accept several answers! The link stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00MC given by Mariano shows that $Atohat A_mathfrak m$ is not an epimorphism (unless it's an isomorphism) if $A$ is local and noetherian. I was wondering if, with your argument, you couldn't show that this is also true if $A$ is a (not necessarily noetherian) domain?
    $endgroup$
    – Pierre-Yves Gaillard
    Aug 12 '17 at 17:02











  • $begingroup$
    A variant of my argument shows that if $B$ is any $A$-algebra which has elements which are transcendental over $A$, then $Ato B$ is not an epimorphism. But I don't believe that $hatA_mathfrakm$ must always have transcendental elements (if it is different from $A$). For instance, let $A$ be local ring intermediate between $K[X]_(X)$ and $K[[X]]$ which contains an entire transcendence basis for $K[[X]]$. Then if I'm not mistaken, the completion of $A$ will just be $K[[X]]$, which is algebraic over $A$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 17:21










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you! I realized that there is an elementary point I don't understand in you answer. You need to know (it seems to me) that the transcendence degree of $K((X))$ over $K(X)$ is at least two. What would be a simple argument to prove this?
    $endgroup$
    – Pierre-Yves Gaillard
    Aug 12 '17 at 17:57






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I have added a proof that $K((X))$ has uncountable transcendence degree over $K(X)$ to the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 19:08






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yeah, that's the structure of the argument.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 19:42















5












$begingroup$

Let $B$ be a transcendence basis for the field $K((X))$ over $K(X)$ and let $L$ be an algebraic closure of $K((X))$. Note that any injection from $B$ to itself can be extended to an endomorphism of $L$ over $K(X)$. There are many such injections, since $B$ is uncountable (see below for a proof). Restricting these endomorphisms to $K((X))$ gives many different homomorphisms $K((X))to L$ which all agree on $K[X]$. Restricting these homomorphisms to $K[[X]]$, we get many different homomorphisms $K[[X]]to L$ which agree on $K[X]$. (They are still different since a homomorphism on $K((X))$ is determined by its restriction to $K[[X]]$.)



[There are many other ways you could frame this same idea; for instance you could set it up more like uSir470888's answer. The point is that it's really easy to define homomorphisms into an algebraically closed field. In particular, once you're mapping into an algebraically closed field you can forget about whatever rigidity $K[[X]]$ might have had over $K[X]$ and map transcendental elements of $K[[X]]$ to any algebraically independent elements you want.]




Here is a proof that $K((X))$ always has uncountable transcendence degree over $K(X)$. First, we prove a lemma:




Lemma: Let $k$ be a field, let $K$ be a field extension of $k$, and suppose $Ssubset k((X))$ is algebraically independent over $k(X)$. Then $S$ is algebraically independent over $K(X)$, as a subset of $K((X))$.



Proof: Suppose some elements $s_1,dots,s_n in S$ satisfy $h(s_1,dots,s_n)=0$, where $h$ is a nonzero polynomial with coefficients in $K[X]$. For each $minmathbbZ$, the $X^m$ term of $h(s_1,dots,s_n)$ can be written as a polynomial in the coefficients of the $s_i$ (which are certain elements of $k$) and the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$ (each coefficient of $h$ is an element of $K[X]$, and the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$ are elements of $K$). Moreover, these polynomials are actually linear in the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$. So to say that $h(s_1,dots,s_n)=0$ is to say that the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$ satisfy a certain infinite list of linear equations with coefficients in $k$. But if a system of linear equations in finitely many variables with coefficients in a field $k$ has a nonzero solution in an extension of $k$, it has a nonzero solution in $k$ (this is essentially the fact that the rank of a matrix cannot change if you extend the base field). This means that we can replace the coefficients of $h$ by polynomials with coefficients in $k$ (which are not all zero) and $h(s_1,dots,s_n)=0$ will still be true. This contradicts the assumption that $S$ is algebraically independent over $k(X)$.




Now let $K$ be any field, and let $k$ be any countable subfield of $K$. Since $k(X)$ is countable and $k((X))$ is uncountable, there exists an uncountable subset $Ssubset k((X))$ which is algebraically independent over $k(X)$. By the Lemma, $S$ is also algebraically independent over $K(X)$ as a subset of $K((X))$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Awesome! I wish I could accept several answers! The link stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00MC given by Mariano shows that $Atohat A_mathfrak m$ is not an epimorphism (unless it's an isomorphism) if $A$ is local and noetherian. I was wondering if, with your argument, you couldn't show that this is also true if $A$ is a (not necessarily noetherian) domain?
    $endgroup$
    – Pierre-Yves Gaillard
    Aug 12 '17 at 17:02











  • $begingroup$
    A variant of my argument shows that if $B$ is any $A$-algebra which has elements which are transcendental over $A$, then $Ato B$ is not an epimorphism. But I don't believe that $hatA_mathfrakm$ must always have transcendental elements (if it is different from $A$). For instance, let $A$ be local ring intermediate between $K[X]_(X)$ and $K[[X]]$ which contains an entire transcendence basis for $K[[X]]$. Then if I'm not mistaken, the completion of $A$ will just be $K[[X]]$, which is algebraic over $A$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 17:21










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you! I realized that there is an elementary point I don't understand in you answer. You need to know (it seems to me) that the transcendence degree of $K((X))$ over $K(X)$ is at least two. What would be a simple argument to prove this?
    $endgroup$
    – Pierre-Yves Gaillard
    Aug 12 '17 at 17:57






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I have added a proof that $K((X))$ has uncountable transcendence degree over $K(X)$ to the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 19:08






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yeah, that's the structure of the argument.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 19:42













5












5








5





$begingroup$

Let $B$ be a transcendence basis for the field $K((X))$ over $K(X)$ and let $L$ be an algebraic closure of $K((X))$. Note that any injection from $B$ to itself can be extended to an endomorphism of $L$ over $K(X)$. There are many such injections, since $B$ is uncountable (see below for a proof). Restricting these endomorphisms to $K((X))$ gives many different homomorphisms $K((X))to L$ which all agree on $K[X]$. Restricting these homomorphisms to $K[[X]]$, we get many different homomorphisms $K[[X]]to L$ which agree on $K[X]$. (They are still different since a homomorphism on $K((X))$ is determined by its restriction to $K[[X]]$.)



[There are many other ways you could frame this same idea; for instance you could set it up more like uSir470888's answer. The point is that it's really easy to define homomorphisms into an algebraically closed field. In particular, once you're mapping into an algebraically closed field you can forget about whatever rigidity $K[[X]]$ might have had over $K[X]$ and map transcendental elements of $K[[X]]$ to any algebraically independent elements you want.]




Here is a proof that $K((X))$ always has uncountable transcendence degree over $K(X)$. First, we prove a lemma:




Lemma: Let $k$ be a field, let $K$ be a field extension of $k$, and suppose $Ssubset k((X))$ is algebraically independent over $k(X)$. Then $S$ is algebraically independent over $K(X)$, as a subset of $K((X))$.



Proof: Suppose some elements $s_1,dots,s_n in S$ satisfy $h(s_1,dots,s_n)=0$, where $h$ is a nonzero polynomial with coefficients in $K[X]$. For each $minmathbbZ$, the $X^m$ term of $h(s_1,dots,s_n)$ can be written as a polynomial in the coefficients of the $s_i$ (which are certain elements of $k$) and the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$ (each coefficient of $h$ is an element of $K[X]$, and the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$ are elements of $K$). Moreover, these polynomials are actually linear in the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$. So to say that $h(s_1,dots,s_n)=0$ is to say that the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$ satisfy a certain infinite list of linear equations with coefficients in $k$. But if a system of linear equations in finitely many variables with coefficients in a field $k$ has a nonzero solution in an extension of $k$, it has a nonzero solution in $k$ (this is essentially the fact that the rank of a matrix cannot change if you extend the base field). This means that we can replace the coefficients of $h$ by polynomials with coefficients in $k$ (which are not all zero) and $h(s_1,dots,s_n)=0$ will still be true. This contradicts the assumption that $S$ is algebraically independent over $k(X)$.




Now let $K$ be any field, and let $k$ be any countable subfield of $K$. Since $k(X)$ is countable and $k((X))$ is uncountable, there exists an uncountable subset $Ssubset k((X))$ which is algebraically independent over $k(X)$. By the Lemma, $S$ is also algebraically independent over $K(X)$ as a subset of $K((X))$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Let $B$ be a transcendence basis for the field $K((X))$ over $K(X)$ and let $L$ be an algebraic closure of $K((X))$. Note that any injection from $B$ to itself can be extended to an endomorphism of $L$ over $K(X)$. There are many such injections, since $B$ is uncountable (see below for a proof). Restricting these endomorphisms to $K((X))$ gives many different homomorphisms $K((X))to L$ which all agree on $K[X]$. Restricting these homomorphisms to $K[[X]]$, we get many different homomorphisms $K[[X]]to L$ which agree on $K[X]$. (They are still different since a homomorphism on $K((X))$ is determined by its restriction to $K[[X]]$.)



[There are many other ways you could frame this same idea; for instance you could set it up more like uSir470888's answer. The point is that it's really easy to define homomorphisms into an algebraically closed field. In particular, once you're mapping into an algebraically closed field you can forget about whatever rigidity $K[[X]]$ might have had over $K[X]$ and map transcendental elements of $K[[X]]$ to any algebraically independent elements you want.]




Here is a proof that $K((X))$ always has uncountable transcendence degree over $K(X)$. First, we prove a lemma:




Lemma: Let $k$ be a field, let $K$ be a field extension of $k$, and suppose $Ssubset k((X))$ is algebraically independent over $k(X)$. Then $S$ is algebraically independent over $K(X)$, as a subset of $K((X))$.



Proof: Suppose some elements $s_1,dots,s_n in S$ satisfy $h(s_1,dots,s_n)=0$, where $h$ is a nonzero polynomial with coefficients in $K[X]$. For each $minmathbbZ$, the $X^m$ term of $h(s_1,dots,s_n)$ can be written as a polynomial in the coefficients of the $s_i$ (which are certain elements of $k$) and the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$ (each coefficient of $h$ is an element of $K[X]$, and the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$ are elements of $K$). Moreover, these polynomials are actually linear in the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$. So to say that $h(s_1,dots,s_n)=0$ is to say that the coefficients of the coefficients of $h$ satisfy a certain infinite list of linear equations with coefficients in $k$. But if a system of linear equations in finitely many variables with coefficients in a field $k$ has a nonzero solution in an extension of $k$, it has a nonzero solution in $k$ (this is essentially the fact that the rank of a matrix cannot change if you extend the base field). This means that we can replace the coefficients of $h$ by polynomials with coefficients in $k$ (which are not all zero) and $h(s_1,dots,s_n)=0$ will still be true. This contradicts the assumption that $S$ is algebraically independent over $k(X)$.




Now let $K$ be any field, and let $k$ be any countable subfield of $K$. Since $k(X)$ is countable and $k((X))$ is uncountable, there exists an uncountable subset $Ssubset k((X))$ which is algebraically independent over $k(X)$. By the Lemma, $S$ is also algebraically independent over $K(X)$ as a subset of $K((X))$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Mar 17 at 23:08

























answered Aug 12 '17 at 16:10









Eric WofseyEric Wofsey

191k14216349




191k14216349











  • $begingroup$
    Awesome! I wish I could accept several answers! The link stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00MC given by Mariano shows that $Atohat A_mathfrak m$ is not an epimorphism (unless it's an isomorphism) if $A$ is local and noetherian. I was wondering if, with your argument, you couldn't show that this is also true if $A$ is a (not necessarily noetherian) domain?
    $endgroup$
    – Pierre-Yves Gaillard
    Aug 12 '17 at 17:02











  • $begingroup$
    A variant of my argument shows that if $B$ is any $A$-algebra which has elements which are transcendental over $A$, then $Ato B$ is not an epimorphism. But I don't believe that $hatA_mathfrakm$ must always have transcendental elements (if it is different from $A$). For instance, let $A$ be local ring intermediate between $K[X]_(X)$ and $K[[X]]$ which contains an entire transcendence basis for $K[[X]]$. Then if I'm not mistaken, the completion of $A$ will just be $K[[X]]$, which is algebraic over $A$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 17:21










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you! I realized that there is an elementary point I don't understand in you answer. You need to know (it seems to me) that the transcendence degree of $K((X))$ over $K(X)$ is at least two. What would be a simple argument to prove this?
    $endgroup$
    – Pierre-Yves Gaillard
    Aug 12 '17 at 17:57






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I have added a proof that $K((X))$ has uncountable transcendence degree over $K(X)$ to the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 19:08






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yeah, that's the structure of the argument.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 19:42
















  • $begingroup$
    Awesome! I wish I could accept several answers! The link stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00MC given by Mariano shows that $Atohat A_mathfrak m$ is not an epimorphism (unless it's an isomorphism) if $A$ is local and noetherian. I was wondering if, with your argument, you couldn't show that this is also true if $A$ is a (not necessarily noetherian) domain?
    $endgroup$
    – Pierre-Yves Gaillard
    Aug 12 '17 at 17:02











  • $begingroup$
    A variant of my argument shows that if $B$ is any $A$-algebra which has elements which are transcendental over $A$, then $Ato B$ is not an epimorphism. But I don't believe that $hatA_mathfrakm$ must always have transcendental elements (if it is different from $A$). For instance, let $A$ be local ring intermediate between $K[X]_(X)$ and $K[[X]]$ which contains an entire transcendence basis for $K[[X]]$. Then if I'm not mistaken, the completion of $A$ will just be $K[[X]]$, which is algebraic over $A$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 17:21










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you! I realized that there is an elementary point I don't understand in you answer. You need to know (it seems to me) that the transcendence degree of $K((X))$ over $K(X)$ is at least two. What would be a simple argument to prove this?
    $endgroup$
    – Pierre-Yves Gaillard
    Aug 12 '17 at 17:57






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I have added a proof that $K((X))$ has uncountable transcendence degree over $K(X)$ to the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 19:08






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yeah, that's the structure of the argument.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 19:42















$begingroup$
Awesome! I wish I could accept several answers! The link stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00MC given by Mariano shows that $Atohat A_mathfrak m$ is not an epimorphism (unless it's an isomorphism) if $A$ is local and noetherian. I was wondering if, with your argument, you couldn't show that this is also true if $A$ is a (not necessarily noetherian) domain?
$endgroup$
– Pierre-Yves Gaillard
Aug 12 '17 at 17:02





$begingroup$
Awesome! I wish I could accept several answers! The link stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00MC given by Mariano shows that $Atohat A_mathfrak m$ is not an epimorphism (unless it's an isomorphism) if $A$ is local and noetherian. I was wondering if, with your argument, you couldn't show that this is also true if $A$ is a (not necessarily noetherian) domain?
$endgroup$
– Pierre-Yves Gaillard
Aug 12 '17 at 17:02













$begingroup$
A variant of my argument shows that if $B$ is any $A$-algebra which has elements which are transcendental over $A$, then $Ato B$ is not an epimorphism. But I don't believe that $hatA_mathfrakm$ must always have transcendental elements (if it is different from $A$). For instance, let $A$ be local ring intermediate between $K[X]_(X)$ and $K[[X]]$ which contains an entire transcendence basis for $K[[X]]$. Then if I'm not mistaken, the completion of $A$ will just be $K[[X]]$, which is algebraic over $A$.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Aug 12 '17 at 17:21




$begingroup$
A variant of my argument shows that if $B$ is any $A$-algebra which has elements which are transcendental over $A$, then $Ato B$ is not an epimorphism. But I don't believe that $hatA_mathfrakm$ must always have transcendental elements (if it is different from $A$). For instance, let $A$ be local ring intermediate between $K[X]_(X)$ and $K[[X]]$ which contains an entire transcendence basis for $K[[X]]$. Then if I'm not mistaken, the completion of $A$ will just be $K[[X]]$, which is algebraic over $A$.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Aug 12 '17 at 17:21












$begingroup$
Thank you! I realized that there is an elementary point I don't understand in you answer. You need to know (it seems to me) that the transcendence degree of $K((X))$ over $K(X)$ is at least two. What would be a simple argument to prove this?
$endgroup$
– Pierre-Yves Gaillard
Aug 12 '17 at 17:57




$begingroup$
Thank you! I realized that there is an elementary point I don't understand in you answer. You need to know (it seems to me) that the transcendence degree of $K((X))$ over $K(X)$ is at least two. What would be a simple argument to prove this?
$endgroup$
– Pierre-Yves Gaillard
Aug 12 '17 at 17:57




1




1




$begingroup$
I have added a proof that $K((X))$ has uncountable transcendence degree over $K(X)$ to the answer.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Aug 12 '17 at 19:08




$begingroup$
I have added a proof that $K((X))$ has uncountable transcendence degree over $K(X)$ to the answer.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Aug 12 '17 at 19:08




1




1




$begingroup$
Yeah, that's the structure of the argument.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Aug 12 '17 at 19:42




$begingroup$
Yeah, that's the structure of the argument.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Aug 12 '17 at 19:42











1












$begingroup$

[Still checking if $g_1$ and $g_2$ are well defined. Let me know if you find something that doesn't. I changed the target ring to a larger one because I needed space for values on algebraic elements once I force a definition on a transcendental one.]



Let $R$ be the ring of power series on $X$ that are algebraic over the ring of fractions over $K$. This is $R$ consists of all power series $h$ such that there is a polynomial $p(Y)=a_0+a_1Y+...+a_nY^n$ with $a_i$ rational functions over $K$ with denominators that don't vanish at $X=0$, such that $p(h)=0$.



We need to construct two different homomorphisms $g_1,g_2$ from $K[[X]]$ to $R$ such that they coincide on the polynomials. That way $g_1circ i=g_2circ i$ for the inclusion $i:K[X]to K[[X]]$ but $g_1neq g_2$. Showing that $i$ is not an epimorphism.



Define $g_i(s)=s$ for $sin R subset K[[X]]$, $i=1,2$.



Now define $g_1(e^X)=1$ and $g_2(e^X)=sum_n=0^inftyX^n=(1-X)^-1$. In particular $g_1(e^X)=1neq (1-X)^-1=g_2(e^X)$. This defines $g_1,g_2$ on the sub-ring of $K[[X]]$ generated by $R$ and powers of $e^nX$ for $ninmathbbZ$, which are the elements of the form $sum_n=-N^Ne^nXa_n$ for $a_nin R$. Observe how the transcendence of $e^X$ implies that each element of this sub-ring has a unique expression in this form. Their images by $g_1,g_2$ are $sum_n=-N^Na_n$ and $sum_n=-N^N(1-X)^-na_n$ respectively.



We have $g_1,g_2$ defined in a larger sub-ring $R_1$. We still need to define them appropriately on the elements of $K[[X]]$ that are algebraic over $R_1$.



Assume $Yin K[[X]]$ is algebraic over $R_1$. Then there is a polynomial $p(Z)=a_0+a_1Z+...+a_nZ^n$ with coefficients $a_iin R_1$ such that $p(Y)=0$.
We need to define $g_1,g_2$ on $Y$ to be a solution of $0=g_i(a_0)+g_i(a_1)Z+...+g_i(a_n)Z^n$, respectively. In $R$ we have solutions of $0=g_i(a_0)+g_i(a_1)Z+...+g_i(a_n)Z^n$. So, we can send $Y$ to one of those solutions. This extends $g_1,g_2$ to a larger sub-ring $R_2$ of elements of $K[[X]]$ algebraic over $R_1$.



We can again pick an element of $K[[X]]$ transcendental over $R_2$. Defining their images in $R$ to be $1$ or $(1-X)^-1$ we can extend $g_1,g_2$ again and again to homomorphisms on ever larger subrings of $K[[X]]$.



The end results will be ring homomorphism that are different at $e^X$ but equal on the polynomials.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks! I'm trying to understand your answer, but I'm very slow. (I changed the index $K$ to $N$ in your post, to avoid a clash with the field $K$.)
    $endgroup$
    – Pierre-Yves Gaillard
    Aug 12 '17 at 12:26







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Exp(-X) is not in the ring generated by R and exp(X), No?
    $endgroup$
    – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:04











  • $begingroup$
    @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez Fixed that. I meant generated by the powers of $e^X$.
    $endgroup$
    – uSir470888
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:26










  • $begingroup$
    You can save yourself a lot of headaches by just taking your target to be some algebraically closed field containing $K[[X]]$; see my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 16:15















1












$begingroup$

[Still checking if $g_1$ and $g_2$ are well defined. Let me know if you find something that doesn't. I changed the target ring to a larger one because I needed space for values on algebraic elements once I force a definition on a transcendental one.]



Let $R$ be the ring of power series on $X$ that are algebraic over the ring of fractions over $K$. This is $R$ consists of all power series $h$ such that there is a polynomial $p(Y)=a_0+a_1Y+...+a_nY^n$ with $a_i$ rational functions over $K$ with denominators that don't vanish at $X=0$, such that $p(h)=0$.



We need to construct two different homomorphisms $g_1,g_2$ from $K[[X]]$ to $R$ such that they coincide on the polynomials. That way $g_1circ i=g_2circ i$ for the inclusion $i:K[X]to K[[X]]$ but $g_1neq g_2$. Showing that $i$ is not an epimorphism.



Define $g_i(s)=s$ for $sin R subset K[[X]]$, $i=1,2$.



Now define $g_1(e^X)=1$ and $g_2(e^X)=sum_n=0^inftyX^n=(1-X)^-1$. In particular $g_1(e^X)=1neq (1-X)^-1=g_2(e^X)$. This defines $g_1,g_2$ on the sub-ring of $K[[X]]$ generated by $R$ and powers of $e^nX$ for $ninmathbbZ$, which are the elements of the form $sum_n=-N^Ne^nXa_n$ for $a_nin R$. Observe how the transcendence of $e^X$ implies that each element of this sub-ring has a unique expression in this form. Their images by $g_1,g_2$ are $sum_n=-N^Na_n$ and $sum_n=-N^N(1-X)^-na_n$ respectively.



We have $g_1,g_2$ defined in a larger sub-ring $R_1$. We still need to define them appropriately on the elements of $K[[X]]$ that are algebraic over $R_1$.



Assume $Yin K[[X]]$ is algebraic over $R_1$. Then there is a polynomial $p(Z)=a_0+a_1Z+...+a_nZ^n$ with coefficients $a_iin R_1$ such that $p(Y)=0$.
We need to define $g_1,g_2$ on $Y$ to be a solution of $0=g_i(a_0)+g_i(a_1)Z+...+g_i(a_n)Z^n$, respectively. In $R$ we have solutions of $0=g_i(a_0)+g_i(a_1)Z+...+g_i(a_n)Z^n$. So, we can send $Y$ to one of those solutions. This extends $g_1,g_2$ to a larger sub-ring $R_2$ of elements of $K[[X]]$ algebraic over $R_1$.



We can again pick an element of $K[[X]]$ transcendental over $R_2$. Defining their images in $R$ to be $1$ or $(1-X)^-1$ we can extend $g_1,g_2$ again and again to homomorphisms on ever larger subrings of $K[[X]]$.



The end results will be ring homomorphism that are different at $e^X$ but equal on the polynomials.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks! I'm trying to understand your answer, but I'm very slow. (I changed the index $K$ to $N$ in your post, to avoid a clash with the field $K$.)
    $endgroup$
    – Pierre-Yves Gaillard
    Aug 12 '17 at 12:26







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Exp(-X) is not in the ring generated by R and exp(X), No?
    $endgroup$
    – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:04











  • $begingroup$
    @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez Fixed that. I meant generated by the powers of $e^X$.
    $endgroup$
    – uSir470888
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:26










  • $begingroup$
    You can save yourself a lot of headaches by just taking your target to be some algebraically closed field containing $K[[X]]$; see my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 16:15













1












1








1





$begingroup$

[Still checking if $g_1$ and $g_2$ are well defined. Let me know if you find something that doesn't. I changed the target ring to a larger one because I needed space for values on algebraic elements once I force a definition on a transcendental one.]



Let $R$ be the ring of power series on $X$ that are algebraic over the ring of fractions over $K$. This is $R$ consists of all power series $h$ such that there is a polynomial $p(Y)=a_0+a_1Y+...+a_nY^n$ with $a_i$ rational functions over $K$ with denominators that don't vanish at $X=0$, such that $p(h)=0$.



We need to construct two different homomorphisms $g_1,g_2$ from $K[[X]]$ to $R$ such that they coincide on the polynomials. That way $g_1circ i=g_2circ i$ for the inclusion $i:K[X]to K[[X]]$ but $g_1neq g_2$. Showing that $i$ is not an epimorphism.



Define $g_i(s)=s$ for $sin R subset K[[X]]$, $i=1,2$.



Now define $g_1(e^X)=1$ and $g_2(e^X)=sum_n=0^inftyX^n=(1-X)^-1$. In particular $g_1(e^X)=1neq (1-X)^-1=g_2(e^X)$. This defines $g_1,g_2$ on the sub-ring of $K[[X]]$ generated by $R$ and powers of $e^nX$ for $ninmathbbZ$, which are the elements of the form $sum_n=-N^Ne^nXa_n$ for $a_nin R$. Observe how the transcendence of $e^X$ implies that each element of this sub-ring has a unique expression in this form. Their images by $g_1,g_2$ are $sum_n=-N^Na_n$ and $sum_n=-N^N(1-X)^-na_n$ respectively.



We have $g_1,g_2$ defined in a larger sub-ring $R_1$. We still need to define them appropriately on the elements of $K[[X]]$ that are algebraic over $R_1$.



Assume $Yin K[[X]]$ is algebraic over $R_1$. Then there is a polynomial $p(Z)=a_0+a_1Z+...+a_nZ^n$ with coefficients $a_iin R_1$ such that $p(Y)=0$.
We need to define $g_1,g_2$ on $Y$ to be a solution of $0=g_i(a_0)+g_i(a_1)Z+...+g_i(a_n)Z^n$, respectively. In $R$ we have solutions of $0=g_i(a_0)+g_i(a_1)Z+...+g_i(a_n)Z^n$. So, we can send $Y$ to one of those solutions. This extends $g_1,g_2$ to a larger sub-ring $R_2$ of elements of $K[[X]]$ algebraic over $R_1$.



We can again pick an element of $K[[X]]$ transcendental over $R_2$. Defining their images in $R$ to be $1$ or $(1-X)^-1$ we can extend $g_1,g_2$ again and again to homomorphisms on ever larger subrings of $K[[X]]$.



The end results will be ring homomorphism that are different at $e^X$ but equal on the polynomials.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



[Still checking if $g_1$ and $g_2$ are well defined. Let me know if you find something that doesn't. I changed the target ring to a larger one because I needed space for values on algebraic elements once I force a definition on a transcendental one.]



Let $R$ be the ring of power series on $X$ that are algebraic over the ring of fractions over $K$. This is $R$ consists of all power series $h$ such that there is a polynomial $p(Y)=a_0+a_1Y+...+a_nY^n$ with $a_i$ rational functions over $K$ with denominators that don't vanish at $X=0$, such that $p(h)=0$.



We need to construct two different homomorphisms $g_1,g_2$ from $K[[X]]$ to $R$ such that they coincide on the polynomials. That way $g_1circ i=g_2circ i$ for the inclusion $i:K[X]to K[[X]]$ but $g_1neq g_2$. Showing that $i$ is not an epimorphism.



Define $g_i(s)=s$ for $sin R subset K[[X]]$, $i=1,2$.



Now define $g_1(e^X)=1$ and $g_2(e^X)=sum_n=0^inftyX^n=(1-X)^-1$. In particular $g_1(e^X)=1neq (1-X)^-1=g_2(e^X)$. This defines $g_1,g_2$ on the sub-ring of $K[[X]]$ generated by $R$ and powers of $e^nX$ for $ninmathbbZ$, which are the elements of the form $sum_n=-N^Ne^nXa_n$ for $a_nin R$. Observe how the transcendence of $e^X$ implies that each element of this sub-ring has a unique expression in this form. Their images by $g_1,g_2$ are $sum_n=-N^Na_n$ and $sum_n=-N^N(1-X)^-na_n$ respectively.



We have $g_1,g_2$ defined in a larger sub-ring $R_1$. We still need to define them appropriately on the elements of $K[[X]]$ that are algebraic over $R_1$.



Assume $Yin K[[X]]$ is algebraic over $R_1$. Then there is a polynomial $p(Z)=a_0+a_1Z+...+a_nZ^n$ with coefficients $a_iin R_1$ such that $p(Y)=0$.
We need to define $g_1,g_2$ on $Y$ to be a solution of $0=g_i(a_0)+g_i(a_1)Z+...+g_i(a_n)Z^n$, respectively. In $R$ we have solutions of $0=g_i(a_0)+g_i(a_1)Z+...+g_i(a_n)Z^n$. So, we can send $Y$ to one of those solutions. This extends $g_1,g_2$ to a larger sub-ring $R_2$ of elements of $K[[X]]$ algebraic over $R_1$.



We can again pick an element of $K[[X]]$ transcendental over $R_2$. Defining their images in $R$ to be $1$ or $(1-X)^-1$ we can extend $g_1,g_2$ again and again to homomorphisms on ever larger subrings of $K[[X]]$.



The end results will be ring homomorphism that are different at $e^X$ but equal on the polynomials.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Aug 12 '17 at 14:10

























answered Aug 12 '17 at 12:11









uSir470888uSir470888

27026




27026











  • $begingroup$
    Thanks! I'm trying to understand your answer, but I'm very slow. (I changed the index $K$ to $N$ in your post, to avoid a clash with the field $K$.)
    $endgroup$
    – Pierre-Yves Gaillard
    Aug 12 '17 at 12:26







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Exp(-X) is not in the ring generated by R and exp(X), No?
    $endgroup$
    – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:04











  • $begingroup$
    @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez Fixed that. I meant generated by the powers of $e^X$.
    $endgroup$
    – uSir470888
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:26










  • $begingroup$
    You can save yourself a lot of headaches by just taking your target to be some algebraically closed field containing $K[[X]]$; see my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 16:15
















  • $begingroup$
    Thanks! I'm trying to understand your answer, but I'm very slow. (I changed the index $K$ to $N$ in your post, to avoid a clash with the field $K$.)
    $endgroup$
    – Pierre-Yves Gaillard
    Aug 12 '17 at 12:26







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Exp(-X) is not in the ring generated by R and exp(X), No?
    $endgroup$
    – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:04











  • $begingroup$
    @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez Fixed that. I meant generated by the powers of $e^X$.
    $endgroup$
    – uSir470888
    Aug 12 '17 at 14:26










  • $begingroup$
    You can save yourself a lot of headaches by just taking your target to be some algebraically closed field containing $K[[X]]$; see my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Aug 12 '17 at 16:15















$begingroup$
Thanks! I'm trying to understand your answer, but I'm very slow. (I changed the index $K$ to $N$ in your post, to avoid a clash with the field $K$.)
$endgroup$
– Pierre-Yves Gaillard
Aug 12 '17 at 12:26





$begingroup$
Thanks! I'm trying to understand your answer, but I'm very slow. (I changed the index $K$ to $N$ in your post, to avoid a clash with the field $K$.)
$endgroup$
– Pierre-Yves Gaillard
Aug 12 '17 at 12:26





1




1




$begingroup$
Exp(-X) is not in the ring generated by R and exp(X), No?
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Aug 12 '17 at 14:04





$begingroup$
Exp(-X) is not in the ring generated by R and exp(X), No?
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Aug 12 '17 at 14:04













$begingroup$
@MarianoSuárez-Álvarez Fixed that. I meant generated by the powers of $e^X$.
$endgroup$
– uSir470888
Aug 12 '17 at 14:26




$begingroup$
@MarianoSuárez-Álvarez Fixed that. I meant generated by the powers of $e^X$.
$endgroup$
– uSir470888
Aug 12 '17 at 14:26












$begingroup$
You can save yourself a lot of headaches by just taking your target to be some algebraically closed field containing $K[[X]]$; see my answer.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Aug 12 '17 at 16:15




$begingroup$
You can save yourself a lot of headaches by just taking your target to be some algebraically closed field containing $K[[X]]$; see my answer.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Aug 12 '17 at 16:15

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2391187%2fis-kx-hookrightarrow-kx-an-epimorphism%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

How should I support this large drywall patch? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How do I cover large gaps in drywall?How do I keep drywall around a patch from crumbling?Can I glue a second layer of drywall?How to patch long strip on drywall?Large drywall patch: how to avoid bulging seams?Drywall Mesh Patch vs. Bulge? To remove or not to remove?How to fix this drywall job?Prep drywall before backsplashWhat's the best way to fix this horrible drywall patch job?Drywall patching using 3M Patch Plus Primer

random experiment with two different functions on unit interval Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Random variable and probability space notionsRandom Walk with EdgesFinding functions where the increase over a random interval is Poisson distributedNumber of days until dayCan an observed event in fact be of zero probability?Unit random processmodels of coins and uniform distributionHow to get the number of successes given $n$ trials , probability $P$ and a random variable $X$Absorbing Markov chain in a computer. Is “almost every” turned into always convergence in computer executions?Stopped random walk is not uniformly integrable

Lowndes Grove History Architecture References Navigation menu32°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661132°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661178002500"National Register Information System"Historic houses of South Carolina"Lowndes Grove""+32° 48' 6.00", −79° 57' 58.00""Lowndes Grove, Charleston County (260 St. Margaret St., Charleston)""Lowndes Grove"The Charleston ExpositionIt Happened in South Carolina"Lowndes Grove (House), Saint Margaret Street & Sixth Avenue, Charleston, Charleston County, SC(Photographs)"Plantations of the Carolina Low Countrye